Not at all. However, this is one tradition I have not had the good fortune to have time to study as of yet. I have studied luminaries educated from that tradition, but none that still adhere to that path. Truth is to be sought in ecumenical oneness. What is import, is to conceptualize the source of our manifestation as both a part of us, and independent of us. We likewise need to dispense with any terms that might conjure up images that might personify or limit in any way with respect to time, space or dimensions the source all. Our higher source of being is so much greater than our poking through here in this mucky muck existence in the material plan, in this regard, I can agree with the OP. But then, all matter in the third dimension vibrates at a low frequency, organic or not. Our ability to LOVE makes us able to vibrate at a higher frequencies. Manifestation itself is not disgusting, it is expansive in it's ability to create, to explore, and achieve the over arching desire of creation be expansive. Currently, our minds and thoughts of our source, especially in the Aramaic religions, but in all world religions, are far too restrictive in their concept to totally grasp the concept of the origins of our higher self, and indeed our glorious relationship and divine power to that source. These religions teach us we are prostate victims, like dried up leaves under a huge oak, that will one day fall and crush some of us to dust and shelter others from the storm. When in fact, the truth is, we are all lush green leaves, a part of the living tree, one with it, helping to nourish it, and keep it alive. And as the seasons change, the leaves drop, only, in each season, to be reborn again fresh and new. Do the leaves appear different and separate? Of course. But is it good for the leaves to burn and kill and slaughter each other? Why no, that would cause the death of the tree in the end, would it not? And so, the tree can not long tolerate divisiveness among it's leaves having the illusion that they are separate.
Well yes I do think there are more important issues than thirsting for a utopian dream which is exactly that keeps us from getting our hands dirty and improving ourselves and our planet in the here and now. Even if Norse's world was possible at some future stage it will not be in our lifetime. Yes I have read a few books by Bach actually but no I don't see how it is connected to Hesse. I have read a few novels by Hesse Steppenwolf, Narcissus and Goldmund, Siddhartha and The Fairy Tales he compiled at one point in his career. I know he was very influenced by the East but I am not sure if I see any correlation between Bach and Hesse. Can you give me an outline of what you mean? The similarities you refer to?
For me, I thought both Jonathan Livingston Seagull and Illusions were just Rewrites of Siddhartha to tell the truth. But not literal. They are all great pieces of work in their own right, are they not? And they have wonderful lessons to teach. Admittedly, it has been sometime since I have read either one's work, so I will refer to the web for some help here. From what I can recall though, both relied upon a vehicles of existential thought, placing experience, and learning of the here and now as the pinnacle of importance in finding meaning in human existence. from wiki: Bach: "Bach espouses a consistent philosophy in his books: Our true nature is not bound by space or time, we are expressions of the Is (see: Non-duality), we are not truly born nor truly die, and we enter this world of Seems and Appearances for fun, learning, to share experiences with those we care for, to explore—and most of all to learn how to love and love again." Hesse: "The journey is the reward."
Yes I would agree that they are all good novels though I think Hesse has a little more depth, I never thought he was trying to espouse anything where I felt that with Bach, but I still enjoy Bach's work it is very well done. I can see your point about Jonathan L Seagull and Siddhartha now that you point it out but don't you think these similarities exist because they are both influenced by the same source material? Namely Eastern philosophy and mysticism? Thanks for the links by the way I will take the time to read them and PM you if I have any questions.
sorry, can't help you then, I'm not a biologist, that's where I would got to get a better understanding of the scientific process, I'm not interested in doing a book report tonight. You wanted my definition of a clone, I'm giving you one. That's the definition I'm going with. I think it's a reasonable one. If you don't think it is, perhaps you have an alternate one?
From what I know of Hesse and his influence on the American counter culture scene, I believe that it would be Hesse that influenced Bach, not Eastern mysticism that influenced them both independently. However, you could be right, or it could be a mixture of both. In fact, it could be a self preserving feed back loop. From what I understand, Siddhartha has been translated into several Indian languages and has quite a following now in India. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I guess we should pull S.A.M. in here for a comment? lol So, it could very well be that Mr. Bach was introduced to Hesse and moved from there? Who really knows. The only thing that can be known for certain is chronology. Hesse was a corpse by the time Bach started writing, no? You're welcome for the links. I wish you much luck with the material. I hope you find what you are searching for, and I hope humanity finds in you what it is searching for.
That, is one excellent question. I shall refuse to answer any more question from here on out and let this die peacefully. . . . as any robot w/o a soul should. lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I didn't ask for your help. You seem to misunderstand something about clones so I asked for your definition. That's often a good place to start. If Wikipedia supports your assertions that clones do not have souls, cite that specificly.
